AP: No casualties = no war

posted at 7:45 pm on February 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The AP fact-checked
one of the memes that Democrats have used against John McCain, and come to the conclusion that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama understand the term “war”. Both have tried to “make hay” out of McCain’s suggestion that we could stay in Iraq for 100 years as a proposal for an unending war, especially Obama. However, they leave out a little something from their analysis — casualties:

No, John McCain is not proposing a 100-year war in Iraq. ….

THE SPIN:

Obama: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.”

Clinton: “I’ve also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless, for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be — 50 to 100 years.”

THE FACTS:

The Democrats leave out a vital caveat.

When McCain was asked about Bush’s theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war.

No matter how many times John McCain has to explain it to the two Democrats, they can’t figure out that the presence of American troops does not mean a war exists. Otherwise, we would have been at war with Qatar and Kuwait for the last 18 years, as well as with Germany for the last 60.

No shooting — no war. Heck, even the AP can figure out that much — why can’t the Democrats?

Let’s put this into the context of today’s duelingvideos from the Democrats. When the phone rings at 3 am at the White House, do you want it answered by someone who doesn’t know what the term “war” actually means? Or would you prefer to have it answered by someone who actually knows something about both the military and foreign policy?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Since when has war meant not defeating your so called enemy and then spending billions on their country? Only in recent history (since WWII). If this mindset was around during the founding of this nation or the civil war, America would not be America…hence why they are all wrong on the war and the Republicans are the most deceptive because they actually believe they are tough and have some moral high ground (when they are the biggest appeasers yet). No one has tried to appease Islam more, and stab Israel in the back more, than Mr. We Worship the Same god Bush.

We know the Republicans aren’t really tough… maybe the weasel liberals can be scared into being tough.

Let’s put this into the context of today’s dueling videos from the Democrats. When the phone rings at 3 am at the White House, do you want it answered by someone who doesn’t know what the term “war” actually means? Or would you prefer to have it answered by someone who actually knows something about both the military and foreign policy?

If you look at may name I think the answer to that question should be obvious. Let me re-phrase your question another way…

Before any president sends the military to war my wish is that they have an understanding of such topic and what repercussions that decision brings.

You can also flip my comments around and apply it to open border candidates like McCain.

A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war.

Liberals, “But, but, but.. Iraqi’s DO NOT Deserve Democracy, or a chance for democracy, we are the only ones that are allowed have have “Hope”!, Obama said at the last debate that it was great for “Kosovo, but other parts of the former Yugoslavia at least have the potential to over time build democracies”

LOL!

RUSSERT: He’s 42 years old, he’s a former law professor. He is Mr. Putin’s campaign manager. He is going to be the new president of Russia. And if he says to the Russian troops, you know what, why don’t you go help Serbia retake Kosovo, what does President Obama do?

OBAMA: Well, I think that we work with the international community that has also recognized Kosovo, and state that that’s unacceptable. But, fortunately, we have a strong international structure anchored in NATO to deal with this issue.

We don’t have to work in isolation. And this is an area where I think that the Clinton administration deserves a lot of credit, is, you know, the way in which they put together a coalition that has functioned.

OBAMA: It has not been perfect, but it saved lives. And we created a situation in which not only Kosovo, but other parts of the former Yugoslavia at least have the potential to over time build democracies and enter into the broader European community.

But, you know, be very clear: We have recognized the country of Kosovo as an independent, sovereign nation, as has Great Britain and many other countries in the region. And I think that that carries with it, then, certain obligations to ensure that they are not invaded.

It’s really starting to freak me out that people this naive are well on their way to the White House.

They’re not naive – at least about what McCain meant – they’re just demagogues.

Since when has war meant not defeating your so called enemy and then spending billions on their country?

Since the dawn of time – presuming that by “spending billions” you mean helping the ordinary citizens of enemy states or the former enemies themselves to recover, sometimes at great cost, especially when they can be re-organized as allies or brought directly into the service of the conquering army.

War aims and methods will vary as widely as causes of conflicts, types of combatants, and historical situations – that is, very widely.

Ever try to tell a liberal that Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds? They don’t care. “None of our business”, they declare. They then go on to explain to me the urgent need for US intervention in the Sudan. I don’t even think that THEY understand their own logic.

Ever try to tell a liberal that Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds? They don’t care. “None of our business”, they declare. They then go on to explain to me the urgent need for US intervention in the Sudan. I don’t even think that THEY understand their own logic.

malan89 on February 29, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Then they talk about how we need to bomb Pakistan, or take on North Korea they always want to fight the war that we are NOT fighting at the time.

I think Hillary and Obama need to be far away from the phone as possible!

Lets go back in time,the Liberal Democratic Party!

We got wall to wall coverage of the war by CNN
CNN couldn’t show enough casualties
We listened to the media harp about”Mission Acomplished”
on the Aircraft Carrier.
We heard the Liberal whining about their concern over
body armour.
Then Code Pinko’s go on the warpath against the US Military.

Cindy Sheehan steps in and uses her son’s death to further
the Liberals “Anti-War Agenda”
Pelosi and Reid,”The War is Lost” The caring Liberals
want to surrender!
In Irag cars are blowing up left,right and centre.
Liberal media comes out,it’s a “Civil War”,we need to
leave,Reid and Kerry lead the charge.

The surge is introduced and even before it gets going,
Reid still wants to surrender.

The surge is working,the top Liberals still want to leave and surrender.

The surge worked,Irag is transitioning to normal life,
Reid still calls it a failure and is still in denial!

Now were 8 months to Nov.4 and the Liberals are playing
their tricks of trying to besmirch our Republican John McCain,who knows the Military,it might take 5,50 or a 100
years,just depends on how quick the Islamofaschists are
willing to meet the virgins,and if the Jihadys co-operate
the war can be over sooner!

And keep Obama and Hillary,far,far,far,away from the telephone,please!

Sorry Chakra Hammer, but truth be told Bill Clinton didn’t downsize the military. President George Herbert Bush downsized the U.S. military right after Desert Storm. I was in the Corps at the time, we were ordered to go from over 200,000 active duty members down to 150,000 active duty members. Thank God out Commandant at the time convinced Presidient G.H. Bush to keep the end strength at 175,000 for the Marine Corps.

No shooting — no war. Heck, even the AP can figure out that much — why can’t the Democrats?

Just un pequeno problema for Juan Plantation McVano there – When Senor Juan is debating Messiah Obama on TV, in all likelihood, the shooting and IED’s etc, will still be going on after what will be 5 and a half years with no final end to it in sight.

PLUS!!! Plus!!! PLUS!!!

From McCain’s own web site –

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army {Five and a half years of training already. That’s enough for them all to have gone to medical school!]; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America’s ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.

If what is on Juan’s own web site alone won’t give democrats thinking about the November election an orgasm, I don’t know what would.

If Juan had any sense at all, he would just shut up about Iraq and hope that it stayed on the back burner and that most voters forget about it.

If certain contributors at HotAir had any sense at all, they wouldn’t get all bold-faced over a page on McCain’s web site that hasn’t been updated in about a year, and clearly refers to the situation that obtained as the surge build-up was just getting under way.

Sorry Chakra Hammer, but truth be told Bill Clinton didn’t downsize the military. President George Herbert Bush downsized the U.S. military right after Desert Storm. I was in the Corps at the time, we were ordered to go from over 200,000 active duty members down to 150,000 active duty members. Thank God out Commandant at the time convinced Presidient G.H. Bush to keep the end strength at 175,000 for the Marine Corps.

When McCain was asked about Bush’s theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

Well, it’s fine with him, but is it fine with the Iraqis?

McCain really said a mouthful here. Perhaps the reason why groups like al Qaeda and the rest of the insurgency has had success “motivating” people is because people like McCain have stated that they have no problem with our presence in the region for 100 years? Is the perception that we are there to set up permanent bases and take over one of the reasons why we’ve encountered so much resistance? You see, this works both ways.

If McCain wants to go on the assumption that Iraq would eventually be like S. Korea or Germany in the sense that we’d have a nice friendly base there indefinitely, perhaps he is the one who is naive with regard to foreign policy. It’s a different part of the world. Sooner rather than later, they’ll want us to leave. In all likelihood, it will continue to be a war as long as we’re there. Hence, the grief McCain gets over the 100 years comment.

McCain really said a mouthful here. Perhaps the reason why groups like al Qaeda and the rest of the insurgency has had success “motivating” people is because people like McCain have stated that they have no problem with our presence in the region for 100 years? Is the perception that we are there to set up permanent bases and take over one of the reasons why we’ve encountered so much resistance? You see, this works both ways.

If McCain wants to go on the assumption that Iraq would eventually be like S. Korea or Germany in the sense that we’d have a nice friendly base there indefinitely, perhaps he is the one who is naive with regard to foreign policy. It’s a different part of the world. Sooner rather than later, they’ll want us to leave. In all likelihood, it will continue to be a war as long as we’re there. Hence, the grief McCain gets over the 100 years comment.

What is your suggested solution then?

Should we pull out now? Wait a pre-determined amount of time and then leave? Wait for their government to ask us to go?

I can only hope that we can stay (in a non-combative way) in Iraq. I’m not a big McCain fan, but he is right on this issue.

Do you really expect the Dems to be honest and tell the truth? In what world do you live in? As long as they think lying and slander will get them the WH we will have to keep listening to their voices of deceit.

It is on Juan’s web site right now, at least as of just 2 days ago when I last checked.

Are you implying that Juan doesn’t even know what fracken year it is?

MB4 on February 29, 2008 at 10:15 PM

No. I’m stating that the content of the web page hasn’t been updated in about a year – since probably before the time that April 07 speech that’s posted on the same page was given. So I guess you can feel free to grow even firmer in your implacable hatred of all things McCain, since it’s clear his team hasn’t updated all of his position papers.

I’ll betcha even the Change You Can Believe In’s 800-zillion dollar web site has got some obsolete or to-be-provided pages and other glitches, but don’t worry, I don’t expect it to affect your judgment, if judgment is the right word.

So I guess you can feel free to grow even firmer in your implacable hatred of all things McCain, since it’s clear his team hasn’t updated all of his position papers [After a whole year? That would take slow to a whole new level and you want him to be el Presidente? And how do you even know how long it has been there anyway?].

but don’t worry, I don’t expect it to affect your judgment, if judgment is the right word.

This latest exchange adds to what I’d guess would easily be hundreds of splenetically anti-McCain posts that you’ve put at HotAir over the last several months. I honestly thought you were competing for angriest anti-McCain commenter in the world award.

Anyway, take a tip from someone who apparently has been around political communications longer than you have: Even the best, most well-funded, position paper-oriented campaigns get lazy about updating their campaign materials, especially when they’re still transitioning from one phase of the campaign to another, in this case from primaries to general, and aren’t 100% sure of who their opponent is going to be. If I knew who to e-mail or call up, I’d def advise them, on the basis of criticism from the highly noted political observer MB4, that it’s about time they re-worked on their Iraq issues page, even if only provisionally.

Should we pull out now? Wait a pre-determined amount of time and then leave? Wait for their government to ask us to go?

I can only hope that we can stay (in a non-combative way) in Iraq. I’m not a big McCain fan, but he is right on this issue.

-OldPhart on February 29, 2008 at 11:04 PM

I don’t know that there’s a perfect solution, but I’m leaning towards Obama’s plan, which would slowly draw down our presence over the course of 16 months. This would result in the last of our forces leaving Iraq sometime in mid-2010 (with the exception of those needed around our embassy and for diplomatic operations). This would allow 2+ years more for the Iraqis to stabilize the political scene.

I do see a need to keep troops in the area; a couple Nimitz class aircraft carriers in the Persian gulf can serve as platforms for targeted strikes on al Qaeda and other threats. There are other options, but I think that permanent military bases in Iraq are a mistake.

From Messiah Obama’s campaign website (Which he presumable has up to date):

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

From Juan McCain’s campaign website (Which he presumable has at least reasonably up to date unless he has become senile):

“A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America’s ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.”

Not necessarily. If a capitalistic democracy is established in Iraq, they’ll soon discover that there is a ton of money to be made if American soldiers stay in your area. In 2003, Germany was talking seriously about our leaving, basically on the back of the disagreement over going to Iraq. 1AD and 1ID deployed out of Germany, the first time in 60 years that all combat elements left Germany…and the subsequent cash cow went with them. Our leaving was so bad for business in so many communities that Germany is hoping that the BRAC list stays frozen over here, as even the effects of our draw down are being felt in many cities.

To put it simply, American GIs are good for business. And what Iraqi will feel bad about making a dollar off an American? It’s win-win…kind of.

I already told you what I strongly believe to be the status of the McCain web page you refer to. I frankly think that it’s pretty durn obvious to anyone who has been following the Iraq issue, and who can pick up on other obvious clues – like the April 07 speech that also appears on the page, or, even more tellingly, the reference to Gen Jack Keane, who was one of the architects of the surge strategy, along with Fred Kagan. The recommendations referred to in the page are the ones that Keane and Kagan made, and that Bush adopted, during the crucial ’06-’07 transition to the surge.

And, on the other subject, no, I’m not “hysterical” about this. In fact, I only barely care at all. And, yes, you – or maybe some other feller who uses your registration and like to refer to McCain as Juan Plantation whatever – come across as an implacable McCain hater, and if any non-McCain-hating regulars were frequenting this thread and taking an interest, I’m fairly confident they’d back me on that observation.

If a Dem is elected, and he/she withdraws from Iraq, moves forces to Aghanistan as if it were a good idea…then

…why would the phone ring in the middle of the night?

ANSWER:
1) cause withdrawing from Iraq too fast doesn’t=safety or peace
2) cause more troops in Afghanistan is as historically successful a strategy for that place as sending more battleships
3) cause (to quote John McCain) there will be more wars

Hillary’s ad is an expression and admission that Democrats know the reality. They just don’t like the taste.

Yes exhelodrvr, President Clinton did finish the downsizing of the U.S. military that President Bush started. President Clinton, to my knowledge, didn’t deviate from the orignal plan put into action by President Bush.

I’m not defending Clinton, he didn’t do the military any favors while he was in office. It’s just not accurate that the downsizing was Clinton’s idea to begin with.

OK, MB4, if you’re not a McCain hater – and don’t want to come across as one – why don’t you try putting up a few posts in a row referring to the presumptive Republican nominee as “Senator McCain” or perhaps just “McCain” for short, instead of referring to him as Juan, etc., the trademark of all McCain-haters. If you don’t hate him, and don’t want to be seen to hate him, you really should pick a new joke.

While you’re at it, maybe you can take the time to clue the rest of us some of your positive feelings about the presumptive Republican nominee. I’ve been frequenting HotAir for months, and I’m pretty sure you’ve never had a kind or even understanding word for Senator McCain or any of his policies, or any of his supporters, while on the other hand you’ve led, applauded, or encouraged numerous sessions of McCain-bashing. You’ve periodically reminded us that you won’t vote for him, that you’re “quits” with him, that you feel we have terrible choices this year, and so on, but, if you’ve ever had a single moment of doubt, a single second thought, I’ve never seen the evidence.

Bonus points if you refrain from equating his position on immigration with “treason” or otherwise imputing only the darkest and most corrupt motives to his political decisions. Demerits if you resort to boldface in order to express your agitation over one or another trivial aspect of his campaign or campaign materials.

Or don’t bother – that’s fine, too. I’ll return to my normal policy of ignoring your posts except when I happen to be in the mood to point out some egregiously ill-informed observation.

Reporter: Senator McCain, is it true that if you become President you will put a real fence along the border with Mexico rather than just some phony so called “virtual fence”? And a follow up question sir, if so what will the physical fence look like?

Senator John McCain: That is a very good question and yes when I become el President I will put up a physical fence. What will it look like? Well it will run the full length of the border and have special security gates every 100 feet.

All the security gates will have on them:

1) Press one for Spanish (with a response of “Welcome Amigo, my country is your country and please take a free map to the wonderful plantation owner employer of your choice. Also please feel free to take advantage of all our many social services like medical care and schools and be sure to demand a Spanish interpreter if you want one.”).

2) Press two for English (with a response of “Go to
Infierno you damned bigoted nativist lazy madre fornicario gringo who does not want what is right for America del Norte!!!”).

In 2001, McCain, a situational ethicist regarding “big money” in politics, founded the Reform Institute to lobby for his agenda of campaign restrictions. It accepted large contributions, some of six figures, from corporations with business before the Commerce Committee (e.g., Echosphere, DISH Network, Cablevision Systems Corp., a charity funded by the head of Univision). The Reform Institute’s leadership included Potter and two others who are senior advisers in McCain’s campaign, Rick Davis and Carla Eudy. Although his campaign is run by lobbyists; and although his dealings with lobbyists have generated what he, when judging the behavior of others, calls corrupt appearances; and although he has profited from his manipulation of the taxpayer-funding system that is celebrated by reformers — still, he probably is innocent of insincerity. Such is his towering moral vanity, he seems sincerely to consider it theoretically impossible for him to commit the offenses of appearances that he incessantly ascribes to others. Such certitude is, however, not merely an unattractive trait. It is disturbing righteousness in someone grasping for presidential powers.

On health care, McCain has attacked pharmaceutical companies as “bad guys” who are using corrupt political influence to profit at the expense of the little guy–campaign rhetoric borrowed straight from one of John Edward’s “two Americas” tirades. McCain uses this rhetoric to support the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada. The drugs are cheaper in Canada, but that’s because Canada has a system of socialized medicine that imposes price controls. So importing drugs from Canada is just an indirect way of importing socialist price controls.

But every student of economics knows that price controls tend to choke off the supply of new drugs. Why should pharmaceutical companies invest billions of dollars in research and testing over a period of decades, if the government is going to steal their profits by dictating arbitrary prices?

Apparently, John McCain doesn’t understand free-market economics and won’t stand up for the principle of economic freedom. So how is he supposed to stand up to the Democrats on any part of their socialized medicine agenda?

In addition to fighting the Democrats on socialized medicine, a Republican president would also have to fight in Congress for the extension of President Bush’s tax cuts, which are set to begin expiring in 2009 and 2010. A failure to extend these tax cuts (or to make them permanent) would mean a massive de facto tax increase. Yet McCain was opposed to the Bush tax cuts when they were first passed.

But the biggest problem for Republicans with McCain’s candidacy is his stance on global warming. McCain has been an active promoter of the global warming hysteria–for which he has been lauded by radical environmentalists–and he is a co-sponsor of a leftist scheme for energy rationing. The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act would impose an
arbitrary cap on America’s main sources of energy production, to be enforced by a huge network of federal taxes and regulations.

The irony is that McCain won in South Carolina among voters whose top concern is the economy. Don’t these voters realize what a whole new regime of energy taxes and regulations would do to the economy?

No matter what happens, there is likely to be a huge debate in the coming years over global warming–whether it’s really happening, whether it’s actually caused by human beings, and what to do about it. But if the Republicans nominate McCain, that political debate will be over, and Al Gore and the left will have won it–thanks to John McCain.

And speaking of political debate, McCain is against it. The most notorious piece of legislation McCain has co-sponsored with the left is McCain-Feingold, which has the evil distinction of being the nation’s first direct attack on the freedom of political speech during an election campaign, precisely when such speech is most important.

For Republicans, there is one form of suicide worse than losing the 2008 presidential election–and that is winning it with a candidate who will put the pro-welfare-state, pro-regulation left in the driver’s seat of American politics. Yet that is precisely what Republican primary voters are unwittingly supporting when they vote for McCain.
– Robert Tracinski

The two Dems know exactly what Maverick said and could care less. They are only interested in pandering to the far left wingnut netroot loons. They are taking his statements out of context for their personal political gain.

It is important to remember that Democrat audiences are the exact same as American Idol audiences — they put forward a lot of hype over usually nothing. They are easily entertained even when the message is usually off key.